On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > Making something involving new types - and so ABI impact - universal > > without actually agreeing the ABI for each target with appropriate ABI > > maintainers or interest groups for that target is not a good idea. It > > leads to ABI incompatibility with other compilers, and to inefficient and > > poorly specified ABIs that are "whatever GCC happens to implement if you > > don't think about it" like we have on several targets for complex > > types.... > > I'd hope ABI issues would be solved trivially by mapping to the > same-sized integer type, the one ISTR you mentioned would be a > good idea to keep before lowering the operations ;) but I guess > I see your point.
The ABI also needs to say which is the same-sized type - and how many integer and fractional bits there are - and there's no guarantee that the psABI maintainers will actually make it behave like the same-sized integer type. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
